On Mar 25, 10:27 am, "BH Williams" wrote:
"Lüko Willms" wrote in message

...

Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:00:56 UTC, schrieb Dan G
auf uk.railway :

Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme?

I didn't. But I have some thoughts about this:

*Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length
of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel
can be much more costly to build -- does make sense only when one
wants to see the cost of the tunnel as only the cost of boring it, by
meter or kilometer.

But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the
underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London
Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations,
which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l
box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations.
That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel
more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open
station in its middle.

Just my two cents...

Cheers,
L.W.

More to do with the very deep foundations of tall buildings in Central
London than utilities. In comparison, the tunnelling for CTRL2 and JLE were
relatively unimpeded by such constraints. The gradient profile should be
'interesting' as a result of this.
Brian

Instead of going along oxford street, which is quite filled with
building foundations, they should continue through hyde-park to hyde-
park-corner, and then take the old fleet-line route via charing cross/
aldwych, and then along kingsway, routes which already have tube lines
under them.